BMJ  2005;331:940 (22 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.38583.625613.AE (published 12 September 2005)

Primary care

Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Royal Free and UCL Medical School, London WC1E 7HD, ² Centre for General Practice and Primary Care, Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, ³ Cardiac Directorate, Barts and the London NHS Trust, London

Objective To evaluate the effect of opt-in compared with opt-out recruitment strategies on response rate and selection bias.

Design Double blind randomised controlled trial.

Setting Two general practices in England.

Participants 510 patients with angina.

Intervention Patients were randomly allocated to an opt-in (asked to actively signal willingness to participate in research) or opt-out (contacted repeatedly unless they signalled unwillingness to participate) approach for recruitment to an observational prognostic study of patients with angina.

Main outcome measures Recruitment rate and clinical characteristics of patients.

Results The recruitment rate, defined by clinic attendance, was 38% (96/252) in the opt-in arm and 50% (128/258) in the opt-out arm (P = 0.014). Once an appointment had been made, non-attendance at the clinic was similar (20% opt-in arm v 17% opt-out arm; P = 0.86). Patients in the opt-in arm had fewer risk factors (44% v 60%; P = 0.053), less treatment for angina (69% v 82%; P = 0.010), and less functional impairment (9% v 20%; P = 0.023) than patients in the opt-out arm.

Conclusions The opt-in approach to participant recruitment, increasingly required by ethics committees, resulted in lower response rates and a biased sample. We propose that the opt-out approach should be the default recruitment strategy for studies with low risk to participants.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research

Jenny Hewison and Andy Haines
BMJ 2006 333: 300-302. [Full Text] [PDF]

Are consenters representative of a target population?

David S Millson
BMJ 2005 331: 1082-1083. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics may lead to bias: recruitment
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Full Text]

Better decisions

Trish Groves
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population

Hester J T Ward, Simon N Cousens, Blaire Smith-Bathgate, Margaret Leitch, Dawn Everington, Robert G Will, and Peter G Smith
BMJ 2004 329: 277-279. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The other face of research governance

Alysun M Jones and Bryony Bamford
BMJ 2004 329: 280-281. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Clustering of risk factors and social class in childhood and adulthood in British women's heart and health study: cross sectional analysis

Shah Ebrahim, David Montaner, and Debbie A Lawlor
BMJ 2004 328: 861. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Uptake of HIV screening in genitourinary medicine after change to "opt-out" consent

Belinda Stanley, Jane Fraser, and N H Cox
BMJ 2003 326: 1174. [Full Text] [PDF]

Patients' consent preferences for research uses of information in electronic medical records: interview and survey data

Donald J Willison, Karim Keshavjee, Kalpana Nair, Charlie Goldsmith, and Anne M Holbrook
BMJ 2003 326: 373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Metcalfe, C, Martin, R M, Noble, S, Lane, J A, Hamdy, F C, Neal, D E, Donovan, J L (2008). Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. J. Med. Ethics 34: 37-40 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Tsai, A. C. (2008). Prescriber Profiling. ANN INTERN MED 148: 81-81 [Full text]  
• Junghans, C., Jones, M. (2007). Consent bias in research: how to avoid it. Heart 93: 1024-1025 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Epstein, M. (2007). Legal and institutional fictions in medical ethics: a common, and yet largely overlooked, phenomenon. J. Med. Ethics 33: 362-364 [Full text]  
• Mohr, D C, Hart, S L, Julian, L, Tasch, E S (2007). Screening for depression among patients with multiple sclerosis: two questions may be enough. Mult Scler 13: 215-219 [Abstract]  
• Parkes, J., Kerr, C., McDowell, B. C., Cosgrove, A. P. (2006). Recruitment Bias in a Population-Based Study of Children With Cerebral Palsy. Pediatrics 118: 1616-1622 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hilbrich, L., Sleight, P. (2006). Progress and problems for randomized clinical trials: from streptomycin to the era of megatrials. Eur Heart J 27: 2158-2164 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hewison, J., Haines, A. (2006). Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research.. BMJ 333: 300-302 [Full text]  
• (2005). Patient Recruitment Strategy Can Affect Study Results. JWatch General 2005: 5-5 [Full text]  
• Millson, D. S (2005). Are consenters representative of a target population?. BMJ 331: 1082-1083 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Another explanation

Wenbin Liang
bmj.com, 18 Sep 2005 [Full text]

Are consenters representative of a target population?

David S Millson
bmj.com, 26 Oct 2005 [Full text]

The kind we look up Vs The kind we make up.

BM Hegde
bmj.com, 2 Nov 2005 [Full text]